Support for the Compatibility of Evolution and Theism

The BioLogos Foundation
arguably has the best web site explaining the compatibility of
evolution and theism.

Evolutionary explanations for species’ origins that incorporate
Darwinian mechanisms of random variation and natural selection are
deemed incompatible with creation teachings by some religious
believers who oppose evolution, and also by some atheists who
oppose religion. However, survey and case study data suggest
that most scientists and science teachers view evolution as
compatible with religious faith, as do many of the major religions'
governing bodies in the United States.

Evolution Weekend 2012
will mark the seventh consecutive year in which Darwin's birthday
has been observed by congregations to recognize that religion and
science, two fields of critical importance to humans, should be
seen as complementary rather than confrontational. Evolution
Weekend is sponsored by theThe Clergy Letter Project.
In 2004 an Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
was drafted by Christian clergy in Wisconsin working with Dr. Michael Zimmerman, then Dean of the College
of Letters and Sciences at the University of
Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Jewish rabbis recently drafted a similar letter.
The Clergy Letter Project sponsored
the first Evolution Sunday in 2006; Evolution Sunday was expanded to Evolution Weekend
in 2008 to accommodate events on
multiple days.

Roman Catholic theologian John F. Haught writes: "Any
judgment that evolution is an inherently materialistic or
atheistic notion is not itself a strictly scientific claim, but
instead a belief." (Responses to 101 Questions on God
and Evolution, Paulist Press, 2001, p. 108).

C. S. Lewis was sympathetic to some anti-evolution arguments
because he recognized that extra-scientific atheistic philosophy
was (and still is) promoted as if it were a necessary part of
evolutionary science. However, Lewis refused invitations to
reject evolution outright. The following quotation comes
from C.
S. Lewis on Creation and Evolution: The Acworth Letters,
1944-1960 by Gary B. Ferngren and Ronald L. Numbers (Perspectives
on Science and Christian Faith, Volume 48, Number 1, March
1996, 28-33):

"I believe that Christianity can
still be believed, even if Evolution is true. This is where you
and I differ. Thinking as I do, I can't help regarding your advice
(that I henceforth include arguments against Evolution in all my
Christian apologetics) as a temptation to fight the battle on what
is really a false issue . . ."

Anglican priest John
Polkinghorne is one of many scientist-theologians believing
in both a Creator and modern evolutionary science, while
rejecting both atheistic materialism and religiously-motivated
attempts to find scientific "alternatives" to evolution.
Please click here for
two quotations from Polkinghorne's recent publications.

Even many conservative Christian theologians teach that the
creation stories in the Bible should not be read as historical or
scientific accounts; for example, see Making
Sense of Genesis 1 by R. E. Watts.

Evolutionary biologists seek natural explanations for how species
form, just as developmental biologists (embryologists) seek natural
explanations for how organisms form. We cannot - and maybe never
will - fully explain embryonic development scientifically, but we
expect it to proceed in a manner that – at least in theory – could
be explained scientifically as an unbroken continuum, a thoroughly
natural process. We wisely fear and resist some abusive applications
of our embryological knowledge, but we should never be dismayed that
human embryonic development is as natural as that of any other
organism. And no matter how much we eventually discover about the
embryonic development of humans and other creatures, we will always
be able to praise and thank God for creating each life. Of course,
whether scientific understanding enhances or detracts from such
faith depends upon one’s religious understanding. For example, when
one discovers that only about 30% of human conceptions lead to live
birth, 10-20% result in clinical spontaneous miscarriage and another
50-60% die before pregnancy is even recognized, the randomness and
error-prone nature of human early embryogenesis (particularly
meiosis, fertilization, and implantation) might seem incompatible
with divine providence. Likewise the unpredictability, inefficiency,
suffering and death inherent in the evolutionary origins of
biological species, including our own, also might seem incompatible
with providential creation. But we know in so many areas of daily
life that God works in mysterious ways. We know that scientific
evidence is insufficient, by itself, to support faith in God. Faith
in a loving God who possesses both the will and the power to “work
all things together” for our good must withstand abundant evidence
that each individual’s life is subject to - scientifically speaking
- the indifferent, impersonal contingencies (chances) and
necessities (laws) of nature. Charles Darwin’s personal faith in God
did not survive his growing scientific awareness of how nature
works. But other people, then and now, continue to praise God for
creating species through evolution. Such faith survives, not because
natural explanations are scientifically incomplete, though they are
- indeed, scientists always have more to discover - but because
scientific explanations, however complete, will never answer all of
our questions. There are other ways of knowing in addition to
science. Some branches of philosophy are based on rigorous reason
but not scientific data. Still other ways of knowing - and relating
to - our fellow creatures and God are based on such things as love,
trust, and beauty, all of which can be studied but never fully
encompassed by science. For more information on how a thoroughly
theistic (not deistic) understanding of divine providence can be
compatible with biological evolution, see Craig Rusbult’s essay Divine
Action
in Natural Process.

“We seem to be engaged in contentious, destructive,
and wholly unnecessary debate about evolution and creation. From
my perspective as a scientist working on the genome, the
evidence in favor of evolution is overwhelming . . . Outside of
a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more
powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his
theory.”

Dr. Collins eloquently concluded his lecture with the following
words:

“I think scientist-believers are the most fortunate.
We have the opportunity to explore the natural world at a time
in history where mysteries are being revealed almost on a daily
basis. We have the opportunity to perceive the unraveling of
those mysteries in a special perspective that is an uncovering
of God’s grandeur. This is a particularly wonderful form of
worship.”

Those of us who view theism and evolution as compatible realize that
some people (both atheists and theists) will not agree with
us. Some vocal atheists defend their belief as if it were a
necessary correlate of evolutionary science. Some
anti-evolutionists similarly echo the claim that evolution
necessarily leads to atheism. All we ask is that different
views be articulated as clearly as possible, without "spin" and
without antagonism or hostility. For example, we can respect
the approach taken by Dr. Todd Wood of Bryan College, who acknowledges
that
evolution is good science and that it's his personal faith choice
to reject it. Dr. Wood shows that misrepresenting or
denying scientific evidence is not the only approach available to
those who cannot accept evolution for religious reasons.